Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryandrake | Hacker News Reader

We see this fatalistic attitude all the time in software. "Bugs are inevitable." No, they aren't! Bugs are a choice. Almost all companies choose bugs because "no bugs" is too expensive. It's sometimes the right choice but we need to acknowledge that it's a choice and not some natural property of software. Imagine if people who built bridges or airplanes thought "bridge collapses and airplane crashes are inevitable, no way to solve it."

View on HN

I’ve had several occasions where I would build a feature “properly” with defensive guardrails and handling of edge cases “that will never happen (but are technically possible)” and then you run into the coworker that says “it’s overengineered. YAGNI. Just do the one-line fix”

But...were they wrong? There is a difference between "edge case" and "cannot ever happen". I've seen this trend a lot lately where Claude suggests a lot of extra code to handle things that cannot possibly happen. Unless you ask it to, it won't trace the flow of data through the app to confirm the edge case actually exists, if local conditions appear to allow it. Then the developer lets it implement this crap without asking that one question, and I have to say YAGNI in the review.

I've seen so many software bugs in my career where when you traced execution, you'd find the code crashing in a block with the comment //this can never happen

That’s not a bad thing though — what that means is that the original dev believed this could never happen and probably therefore could not decide exactly what the right way to handle the error is.

Whether they were wrong is a matter of perspective.

I think they were against over engineering because they were constantly firefighting bugs and didn’t have time to thoughtfully review.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com